Talk:Great Micronational Antarctic War
Please support us in this war. Please write on this page if you wish to help us or have questions concerning the war. GUM Statement - May 27th 2009 To the honourable members of the Grand Unified Micronational involved in the "Siple War", And to all others with vested interests in this matter, As you are all undoubtedly aware, the Grand Unified Micronational is an institution founded in the hope of promoting intermicronational peace and security by persuing a neutral "foreign policy" as a collective institution. We are a union of micronations who have committed themselves, through the signing of a binding international constitution, to promote intermicronational peace and actively work to promote the micronational ideal by assisting one another in any way we can. Yet it is with regret that I must say this institution has not always worked towards it's most noble goals and, indeed, has on occassion taken courses of action that are absolutely against it's core ethic and founding principles. When my colleagues in the Quorum nominated me to lead this institution as it's executive director, succeeding the more than capable President Koolidge of Petorio, I promised that I would do all I could to return the institution to it's founding ideas. With the Siple War have recently become an event of intrique once more among some member states, I have taken more time to study the events of the war. For many months now the Grand Unified Micronational has given it's full political and diplomatic support to Flandrensis and her allies, taking a stance against West Arctica. As Chairman I can no longer allow this - all though I have no power to force any member state to withdraw their support for Flandrensis, nor do I have the political or moral authority to encourage individual members to do so as the leader of Erusia, I do have the authority as leader of this institution to revise it's official stance on the Siple War. Having consulted with my friend and colleague, the Supreme Judge of the Grand Unified Micronational Justice Commission, I hereby withdraw all GUM support for Flandrensis and declare the institution neutral in this conflict. All member states must remember that this institution can never, ever lend official support to any conflict - it stands for the promotion of peace and intermicronational security. As such, I hereby call for both parties in the conflict to revise their foreign policy and work towards achieving a peace that restores the status quo both territorial and diplomatically. I strongly encourage member states to reconsider their own stance on the matter and instead declare neutrality in the war, urging a solution that does not favour either side in the conflict. Mistakes have been made in the past by this institution, mistakes our reputation has been damaged by - we can no longer afford to let our reputation suffer by violating our own core ethic and turning the GUM into a diplomatic weapon. Robert Lethler, Grand Unified Micronational, Chairman of the Quorum of Delegates In answer to the GUM Last week we signed the constitution and rejoin the GUM. I regret that I must read here that the GUM don't support us anymore and that nobody of the GUM send me a mail. The GUM promote peace and try to find solutions for conflicts. But we offers two times peace to Westarctica and got only insults back. But without the GUM Flandrensis and Finismund will try to find a peacefull solotion for this conflict (we're working on it now). I would thank all the others that keep support us, we promise that we find a solution. Therefore we regret that the GUM don't support us anymore.--Niels Vermeersch 21:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Add me to the list Petorio is backing you 100% in this war, Ohio. Please add us to the GUM list on the Flandrensis side. What can we do to help you out in this war? Ramtak619 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) St.Charlie will not be able to participate in the video, but backs 100% Flandrensis in this conflict. We would like to be added on the list (Flandrensis side of course). As Petorio asked, we would also like to know how we can help. --Cajak 10:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) If you can bring people to our cause, then that will be good. beside that, just make life really hard for them. Emperor Malum I Updates I just read the updates you have, and the answer from Westartica. What can I say... he still doesn't understand that Siple Island is vital for your nation to exist, and the area you claim is NOTING compared to the territory they show on maps. this is uncomprehensible. He says that you have a mental issue, but from his answers, and also from his perennial, obsessive desire to keep Siple Island part of his possession, make him unfortunately look like the "mad one". Good luck for a peace treaty Flandrensis. If you need any help, St.Charlie is always here. ;) --Cajak 12:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC) edit There is at least one date that is in the future, please edit for content EdanianMinister 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Add Me To Your Side The United Republic Of Allied Nations supports you in every way. Were getting peace, and your island back, Westartica is going to pay! Neutrality of this Article The writer of this article portrays a heavy distaste towards Westarctica, and blames Westarctica for the conflict in a very childish fashion. I suggest a rewrite of the article to improve the neutrality of the information given. KeepWatch 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) This page is design by the GUM, maybe you think I was the writer? A lot of micronations thinks that I invent the name 'Siple war' but I don't, this conflict is not for fun. You can indeed contest the neutrality of this article. But their also the facts: their is a conflict between us and Westarctica about the claims. From our view we have right, lawrence think he has right. We offers several times a solution, he send us insulting mails and so this discusions is going further and further, we try to ignore it but how will you feel when someone tommorow claims the territories of Keep Watch? But I promise, we still searching for a solution--Niels Vermeersch 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I'm certainly not questioning the information given in the article, as it appears all true, but there appears to be a heavy bias in the writing. I believe this article should perhaps be written by a neutral party. KeepWatch 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) As an Administrator and independent editor, I will endeavour to try and improve the neutrality of the article based off my knowledge of the stituation. ptrcancer 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Rename article I change the name because the term 'Great Micronational Antarctic War' is more correct. There is a misunderstanding that the whole conflict was only about Siple Island, but it was also about the territory of Finismund & Marie State (the rest of West-Antarctica). The name 'Siple War' was given by the GUM on that moment because Flandrensis asked their help (although also Finismund was a member of the GUM), the Spanish micronations used the term 'Great Micronational Antarctic War' . So I change the name and add some extra information so it would be more clear. Flandrensis 21:33, June 30, 2010 (UTC) Micronational Antarctica Treaty for peace.......... Why don't we also have some thing like Antarctica treaty? We have claimed whole of Antarctica, does this means we must declare war on all the Antarctic nations? No! This is a treaty I devised: 1. Antarctica belongs to Humanity: Antarctica belongs to every one of us, so no need of conflicts. Most nations who claimed Antarctica would never visit Antarctica. So If two nations are having a territory over lapping each other, then don't just recognize that territory has his. Just recognize it as yours. Finally, person who construct building there first would be the owner of that land. 2. No war until physical threat: No battle/war for Antarctica until there is physical threat to you base at Antarctica by another nation(s). This is a rough draft. I am not sure if grammar used by me is also correct.... But what do you think about this? *The AMU-Treaty exist already a long time and already avoid many territorial conflicts (this conflict is already more than a year ago). Flandrensis 08:01, September 11, 2010 (UTC) Rajputistan 06:36, September 11, 2010 (UTC)